SHEWANTABAI Vs. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No.450/2009 by which the High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal, the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court consequently dismissing the suit, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court on genuineness of the Will which was under challenge before the learned Trial Court. Merely because the testator executed the Will in favour of the neighbour, the genuineness of the Will cannot be doubted.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that as such the original defendant No.2 offered before the High Court that the original defendant No.2 is ready and willing to allow the appellant to stay in the house and that he would look after her or in the alternative he is ready and willing to pay her Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month out of the income which he was deriving out of the agricultural property. However, it was the plaintiff-appellant herein who refused to accept the aforesaid offer.